[RIghtwardHo]

Interesting thought. I am most certainly not pro-gay marriage, but being a former Prosecutor who has argued his fair number of Constitutional issues before SCOTUS and State and Federal Courts, I DO believe that it is a State issue and that the Fed Government should stay out of it.

[nhwingut]

Of course you would... Troll!

[Las Vegas Ron]

I DO believe that it is a State issue and that the Fed Government should stay out of it.

BS troll, words have meanings.

IF, you're a prosecutor and supposedly trained within Constitutional law, how would contracts be valid if over the years you can change semantics?

[kingu]

I am most certainly not pro-gay marriage, but being a former Prosecutor who has argued his fair number of Constitutional issues before SCOTUS and State and Federal Courts, I DO believe that it is a State issue and that the Fed Government should stay out of it.

I'm sorry, the state's interest was in promoting child rearing and establishing paternity. That's it; everything else about marriage is an external ceremony. The state's role in giving approval for marriages was to document the marriage, and thus establish the paternity for children from that marriage. It was extended to promote the shared family assets and to continue those assets within the family after the death of an elder in that family. But that is an extension of the primary concern...

If child rearing is no longer a consideration, explain how today a state entity could justify regulating marriage? Let's say they never did regulate marriage before - how would you go about creating the framework for this regulation that makes even the slightest bit of sense instead of a wholesale power grab of a religious expression?

The only justification that would stand up would be children, and once the door is opened to gays calling themselves married, that justification is out the window.

No, marriage is the people's ceremony, with the state invited in for a very specific purpose which coincides with the people's desires. Having the state decide now what and who can get married simply for their political agenda disallows that invitation. And I honestly think this will become the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[nhwingut]

So let me get this straight (based on your posting history).

You are such a hard right conservative that electing Mitt Romney would ruin us forever (not Obama being re-elected).

But pro-gay marriage is an “interesting thought.” Of course not that you are “pro gay marriage” or anything... Or not a troll or anything either.